About your Search

20121108
20121116
STATION
MSNBC 13
MSNBCW 13
CSPAN2 7
CSPAN 6
WHUT (Howard University Television) 5
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WUSA (CBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 66
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 66 (some duplicates have been removed)
over among foreign policy experts? >> well, i think-- i mean, it's-- i think you have john kerry, or you have susan rice. and i think either one of them could be nominated and probably the foreign policy establishment would say that's fine. john kerry probably has more, but susan rice has served as u.n. ambassador and she's got know a lot of foreign experience, certain, from that experience. she's been at the state department bore, too. i mean, her history is in foreign policy. she hasn't opinion secretary of state. he hasn't been on the hill in the capacity john kerry is, but she certainly is experienced. >> reporter: the aforementioned general petraeus, a story that continues to rock this town. the president talked about it at the press conference, said it was a sad personal saga. actually said very nice things about david petraeus' contributions to his country, and also said-- i'm not sure the exact word he used-- but basically no top vent intelligen was revealed. >> i think he made a point of saying so far. and so far, there is not any negative effect on national security. bu
security challenges and the foreign policy challenges we face, i say that the number one challenge is getting our fiscal house in order. getting a handle on the debt, getting a handle on the deficit which are critical in order to get the economy growing again and people back to work. and i think that is the over -- it's certainly the number one domestic challenge. my point is it's always the number one national security challenge. why? because a healthy economy and a healthy balance sheet undergirds everything we do internationally. it funds our military, it gives strength to our diplomacy, it allows us to be an attractive trading partner which gives us economic influence. it undergirds everything we do overseas. but secondly, it also undergirds the power of the american idea. the american idea is political democracy and free markets makes for a stable situation in the long term but also makes for a prosperous society that is able to deliver on its people. that is really what america has stood for. and by our failure to resolve our own problems and get our economy growing and going
about another foreign policy expert, in this case condoleezza rice, back in 2005. here is mccain on susan rice. take a listen. >> susan rice should have known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. she should have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> okay. mortal sin, deal breaker, end of her career because john mccain said she had gotten the wrong brief and delivered the wrong brief. however, mccain had a very different reaction back in 2005 when condoleezza rice was nominated for secretary of state despite her direct involvement in the country's iraq policy, mccain trucked up opposition to her nomination to bitter innocence over losing an election. interesting. let's watch. >> i wonder why we're starting this new congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. i can only conclude we're doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. >> talk about a self-indictment. mccain was asked about the contradiction this mo
the second-term challenges and then foreign policy including the situation in syria and iran and the latest fallout from benghazi ed henry is live at the white house. a lot of challenges from abroad. >>reporter: you talk about the fiscal cliff, they have that and after what has been happening with syria and that is play out with violence on the ground. assad will not give in. the euphoria from tuesday night, you talk to people inside the white house, they knew that is evaporating and we have to get down to business so today the president got a stream of calls from world leaders, including from the u.k., and david cameron, and binyamin netanyahu from israel, as well, congratulations, but, also, in doubt the phone calls, a lot of business being conducted with the president realizing particularly in the middle east there is a lot of major problems to confront. i am told by senior officials before election day the chief of staff, jack lou and others have been meeting and planning and if the president were re-elected they would have to hit the ground running on domestic issues and foreign policy
sadloff and delighted to see you here today. i think the interest in foreign policy in the wake of our presidential election is certainly evidence by the standing remotely crowd we have here today. we are now already into the process of transition, a transition even with the same president, transitions are the most flute and receptive moments in the presidential cycle to have an impact on the policy process, and so i'm -- i take it as a good sign there's so much interest in the foreign policy process by your presence here today. now, i think the transition from a first to a second obama administration may, of course, begin the day after an election, but it doesn't end on inauguration day. this process is going to continue for sometime. as the president's new or old team takes shape, and where necessary, seeks confirmation, as the new old team goes through the inevidentble period of reassessment and redefinition of priorities and opportunities and as other issues, domestic issues, the fiscal cliff, for example, impacts foreign policy, and not forget as the world recalibrates changes or
an audience. you know, when you are the president's foreign policy spokesman and you are hanging out and have the israeli prime minister and then the chairman trying to reach a middle east peace, you go, okay, what we tell the press? and you say, you can tell them whatever you want except for this and that. and what else is there? [laughter] but now we have dennis ross was out of government. and he is writing a new book. when you think about the next four years, clearly how the united states relationship evolves with iran, whether the nuclear issue can be resolved short of conflict will be among those if not the most pivotal issue facing the president in his second term. in 2009 when you were at the state department as the special envoy forswore wrong, there was a strategy of both engagement and pressure. going back to 2009 there is the engagement that has continued at a certain level through the five plus one process, but then there has been focused over the last couple of years on pressure sanctions and the 40% drop in iranian currency shows that we now have the pressure of the last couple
. host: benjamin pauker is senior editor of "foreign policy magazine." we'll get to your calls in a minute. could there be foreign policy fallout in the benghazi attacks on libya? guest: i think there's a lot we don't know. this is one of those scandals that comes out in dribs and drabs. drip, leak, leak, leak. i think there is a sort of consensus that we want to know more. the american public wants to know more. certainly journalists do. there could be political fallout from it. this is a week where there's going to be a number of hearings on ben gaza. so both the house and senator intelligence committees were meeting. there is certainly, congressionally, the desire to hear more and hear more facts. there are big questions that are unanswered. both in the time frame of what happened in the attack, little bits of information, but also in terms of whether the u.s. was ill prepared or naive in terms of providing security for ambassador chris stevens. any tragedy where an ambassador dies and three other americans, there needs to be an investigation. host: will in tennessee, indepe
not mind seing the united states gone. it's important when formulating foreign policy that the united states, particularly the obama administration, decide, are we going to be assisted with our own personal security issue here in the united states by the actions we take or are the re-- reactions that are going to be caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our closest allies and to ourselves? unfortunately, that's what we're seeing. in fact, i had seen an article in may of 2010 that indicated that this administration, the obama administration, sided with israel's enemies in demanding that israel disclose any nuclear weapons. we had never sided with israel's enemies in trying to push israel into doing something against its own interests. when you're a very small country surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important that they not know all of your defenses. going back in the old testament, you find history, king his kaija -- king hezekiah showing all the defenses they had in their armory he showed them to the leaders from babylon. as a resu
spending, we have to change our foreign policy and we have to reassess the whole entitlement system and they are not in the mood to do that because there are too many politically that say, you can't touch my program. touch somebody else's. that is the reason we are going to continue to do this and things will get worse until the crisis gets so bad we have a currency crisis, interest rates go up, we will have to revamp. that will not happen in january. it's all going to -- they are going to pass the buck. host: let's go to the phones and see what the viewers have to say. barb is from our democrats line. good morning. caller: i think all of the bush tax cuts should be eliminated and those dollars be applied to the deficit. for the areas under sequestering, i think they should eliminate the requirement that everything to be cut across the board and let the defense department to determine what they need and what they do not need. the same with the discretionary areas. guest: i agree with half of what you say. i think the military is a big problem. both sides really did not want to touch
with our foreign policy. >> now, governor, senator mccain last month said -- well, let me let you hear what he said. this is amazing to me. >> it's very clear this was a colossal failure that cost the lives of four brave young americans. there has not been an intelligence fail like this in my lifetime and i have been around for a long time. >> there has not been an intelligence fail like this in his lifetime? what about 9/11? what about the iraq war with weapons of mass destruction where 3,000 americans died? what's he talking about? >> four americans are obviously four too many. but because our intelligence system broke down we went to war in iraq and over 3,000 americans died. how can he dare contrast those two? the thing that bugs me about this is there was a potential screw-up. we didn't have the right security in place in benghazi. susan rice had nothing to do with it. she wasn't in the chain of command. she didn't have any responsibility at all. all she did was go on television and, as you said, give the report that the cia had given to her. how can they pick on susan rice? why not wa
. we have so many important issues ahead of us in american foreign policy from the war to iran to north korea to global economic crisis to the euro debt crisis the arab revolutions to securing our embassies. one thing we haven't talked about, i hope that congress will fully fund embassy security. that's been lost in this debate about benghazi. the real issues to me are, how do we strengthen security at embassies, how do we republicans and democrats to give full funding to secure embassies and consoulates and how do we go after the terrorist group in libya that killed ambassador stevens and his colleagues? it's a partisan time in our country, unfortunately. >> thanks very much, nick burns. next, israel's ambassador to the u.s., michael oren joining us. [ male announcer ] can a car be built around a state of mind? ♪ announcing the all-new 2013 malibu from chevrolet. ♪ with a remarkable new interior featuring the available chevrolet mylink infotainment system. this is where sophisticated styling begins. and where it ends? that's up to you. it's here -- the greatest malibu ever. ♪ now
't question his running mate when he chose her. he didn't even ask her questions about foreign policy. she didn't know that. the uk has a prime minister. she didn't know what the fed was. she didn't know what russia -- what kind of policy she needed to have with russia. >> but rula, let's be fair. sarah palin could see russia from her back yard. i mean -- >> and that's -- >> but he says susan rice doesn't know that much. >> he's the man that picked that woman. you know what? he should reflect -- mccain should reflect about how you should behave when you actually are beaten and defeated. with dignity. and you should actually question yourself about your mistakes, about your choices, and how the country wants you to behave from now on. the country chose barack obama with a large margin. >> twice. >> twice. not once. twice. and maz a message for him, that he needs to actually cooperate with barack obama, not attack him. >> joan, as i said, he questioned what ms. rice, ambassador rice knows. let me explain. ambassador rice, now the u.n. ambassador to the u.n., foreign policy adviser to john ke
of the years, never before an audience. [laughter] when you are the president's foreign-policy spokesman and handing out in the roosevelt room as you have the israeli prime minister and then chairman arafat and the president trying to reach middle east piece you go and say, okay. but we tell the press. look, you can tell them what everyone except for this, this, and this. what else is there? but now we have the dennis two is out of the government. and writing a new book. so if you think about the next four years, clearly how the united states relationship evolves with ron, then the clear issue can be resolved short of conflict will be among those, if not the most pivotal issue facing the president in his second term. so start off, in 2009 when you were at the state department's as the special envoy for ron there was a strategy, both engagement. go back to 2009. the engagement has continued at a certain level, but then there has been the focus over the last couple of years on pressure, sanctions, and clearly the 40% drop in the value of a running currencies shows that actually is having t
to catch up with most of you on foreign policy and security. >> the whole key of the issue is what the president was talking about. what happened during that attack. the united states at one advance said the c.i.a. was told to stand down and general petraeus issued a statement saying the c.i.a., at no level did anybody at any time tell the c.i.a. to stand down. that is the question. who did tell them to? >> bob: how do you know it was said? >> fox news found e-mails. >> eric: here is the c.i.a. timeline they put out. they sent the drone unarmed drones observe and what they observed was rocket fire, .50 caliber machine gun. they can go on and on. they are specific. military predator drone arrives on the compound to provide aerial surveillance. they go to weaponry used. >> bob: did you know one of the drones over there was on its way back to italy to be refueled? >> they sent a backup drone. >> bob: right. they did send a backup drone. i defy anybody to look at t pictures and tell me that you can come up with something -- >> greg: they did. >> bob: they said they saw the attack. a lo
director and i'm delighted to see all of you here today. i think the interest in foreign policy in the wake of other presidential election is certainly evident by the standing room only crowd that we have here today. we are now already into the process of transition. transition even with the same president. transitions are the most fluid and receptive moments in the presidential cycle to have an impact on the policy process. and so i'm, i take it, as a good sign there is so much interest in the foreign policy process by your presence here today. now i think that the transition from a first to a second obama administration may of course begin the day after an election but it doesn't end on inauguration day. this process is going to continue for some time. as the president's new or old team takes shape and where necessary seeks confirmation. as the new old team goes through the inevitable period of reassessment and redefinition of priorities and opportunities, and as other issues, domestic issues, fiscal cliff, for example, impacts foreign policy, and let's not forget as the world recalibrate
a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain cessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant, and dependency on the federal government
in recent foreign- policy history is on tv defending david petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with the petraeus' record. those are the fact he manipulated the white house about afghanistan, ran a campaign in iraq there was brutally savage including the worst of the worse, sunni militiamen, shiite death squads. then you go back to the training of the iraqi army that had similar problems. for me, all the while he is going around the country talking about honor and integrity. >> that was michael hastings speaking on piers morgan. >> i think michael hastings is a fascinating case he wrote a cover story about general mcchrystal on "the rolling stone" who ended general mcchrystal's career. what was amazing is nobody doubted the authenticity of the quotes included in this article, yet huge numbers of the most prominent media figures who covered the war in afghanistan attack michael hastings facetiously -- attacked michael hastings viciously, accusing him of violating the trust of the general. not because he reported things that are supposed to be off the record, but they say
of national security, foreign policy. one question in particular got a rise out of him about his u.n. ambassador, susan rice. in his first full press conference since march, president obama was asked about the criticism of u.s. ambassador susan rice, his likely choice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. >> besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> reporter: rice has come under fire from some republicans for initially stating in television interviews that the september attack on an american consulate in libya appeared to be the result of a spontaneous demonstration. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house, in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> reporter: and that's just what senator john mccain did a short time later. he has been one of rice's fiercest critics. >> first and foremost, the president of the united states, the commander in chief is the most responsible. and i hop
to get weapons of mass destruction. >> so the graham rule is it's okay for highly placed foreign policy players in an administration to be wrong about something they say on tv involving intelligence as long as other people are wrong, too, especially people in other countries. in his nakedly political and entirely dishonorable prosecution of susan rice today, john mccain actually said this -- >> we're all responsible for what we say and what we do. >> he obviously meant to add except condoleezza rice and anyone in any republican administration. we're all responsible for what we say and what we do. really? from the guy who said this -- >> that old beach boy song bomb iran, bomb, bomb, bomb -- anyway. >> yeah, anyway. we're all responsible for what we say and what we do. john mccain responsible for what we say and what we do? the guy who was trying to get sarah palin important is in as vice president of the united states, a heart beat away from the presidency. john mccain did that. it was the greatest act of sheer irresponsibility i have ever seen in a presidential candidate. here is somet
in foreign policy. >> the governor brings up a good point, this is traditionally not something the president has to fight over. the president yesterday said, look, the election's over. almost as a precursor to, we need to get past this. this seems to be a way for frustrated republicans to wield some power over a choice that should be the president's to make. >> sure. you should be allowed traditionally to appoint your own team, right? there's a sort of conspiracy theory out there that they want to make susan rice unqualifiable or unqualified for the position so they can appoint john kerry which opens up the senate seat to mass, let's deal with that later. the question for the governor. you affirm the intelligence assessments read on the sunday shows were wrong. and i think it's fair and obvious that the intelligence leading up to the attack was wrong and missed the attack. so can you talk about what type of massive or maybe not so massive intelligence failure occurred on the president's watch and what can be done to actually fix that? >> look, what the president has said and what is going on
said blame the video? obama ran with the foreign policy from years of community organizing. in chicago we learn value of phony outrage. >> let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she made an appearance at the request of the white house where she gave her best understanding of the intelligence provided to her. if senator mccain and graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, bemichelle her reputation -- besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> greg: what is going on here? and rage over criticism of benghazi sparks th spark -- exce rage of benghazi. it's kind of sexist. the juvenile bravado that scared the npr correspondent. outraged that he is picking on her. he doesn't think she can take care of herself. what he offered the same protection to male ambassador? see benghazi. is his anger legitimate? >> andrea: no. >> greg: no? >> andrea: let me think about that. no. he
part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is ramp
continuously focused on his foreign policy and national security agenda. he has great confidence in the acting cia director, confidence in his military and the secretary of defense and the defense department to carry out the missions that he's assigned to them. but he's got, obviously, a lot that he wants to get to work on and he's doing that this week. >> how does this affect, though, his need to revamp the national security team? >> again, these are specific questions about specific individuals and posts. i can say now, even though you haven't asked, i have no announcements to make with regards to personnel and no spec wlags to engage in. i can tell you the president has not made a decision on personnel matters and you will not hear me discuss them until the president has made those decisions and announced them. >> thank you. >> jay, you're saying these are regarding two specific people you can't extrapolate but these are two of the president's top military brass either involved in an extramarital affair or seemingly involved what might be inappropriate behavior. is the president as commande
a successful foreign policy that was supposedly from the beginning his weakness, but which has turned out to be one of his real strengths. so, unfortunately, all of this -- this commitment to our patriotic togetherness and unity that we will govern this country across the aisles with bipartisan attention is being foiled, input president obama showed, as you said, rare, if you will, anger, a flash of real support for susan rice, and indicating he's up to the battle. that should he choose her to become part of his cabinet, he will put her forth with the full expectation that she will be vented in the ways she should be -- vetted, excuse me, in the way she should be without that rancor. you can be assure, the rancor will be following if she's nominated. this po >> lynn, you were there in the east room when the president was speaking. can you recall him being so intense, so passionate about an issue as he was then? >> that was a special moment, being in the room, you could feel the intensity. i was sitting a few feet from him. you could -- you could -- that steely gaze that he really was sett
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 66 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)